I need Win to run RSAT. VirtualBox is all I need. Why pay for virtualization of windows?
Because as good as Virtual Box is it doesn't have anywhere near as many features as Parallels does.
For example dragging and dropping between virtual machine and Mac OS X doesn't work in Virtual Box but does with Parallels and VMWare.
I only use Parallels for Internet Exploder because our call systems only run on IE and will not work using IE under Wine as Wine uses Mozilla's engine to show webpages and our call system doesn't work in Mozilla browsers or Webkit browsers otherwise I'd have no need for Windows at all. But I also use Windows for Office because Mac Office is crap especially Entourage so until they fix that then I will use Office 2010 on Windows and trust me that runs like a dream under Parallels 6.
Some people need to use Windows in order to use certain programs that aren't available on Mac OS X. For example, government CAC cards are only supported on Windows. There supposedly is a work-around, but I could never get it to work. Also, I use Quicken; the Mac version is a joke.
I find VM Ware a much better Windows virtualizer than Parallels. VM Ware is more stable, and does not have a butt-load of gimmicks that seem to cause issues all the time.
In my experience VM Ware gives you Windows and access to any ports and drives you want, when you want them, and it's all done very logically and without hassle. Parallels, on the other hand, is the opposite, it tries to assume many things for you, and I didn't find it stable enough for production purposes.
When I launch Windows in VM Ware, I feel like I'm using a full-blown PC. In Parallels I feel like using Mac with a Windows emulator.
Of course it's 40% faster...when you run it on a new Mac.
I use it to convert files once in a while at work, but I no longer use it at home at all. And I've sworn off using Windows in an form for gaming; if a game doesn't have a Mac version I simply don't buy it. And I don't care if I can't play the latest and greatest.
I prefer VMWare Fusion. I have to run windows for my work ( all software is on windows ). I use VMWare Fusion 3.1 and it runs great. There was a big speed bump with 3.1 compared to the older versions. I mainly use Fusion because I can share images with my PC based work computers that also run VMWare without hving to covert them.
If Parallels is truly 30% faster than Fusion 3.1 ( I doubt ) it would be impressive indeed. I think Parallels is comparing their latest version with an older version of Fusion. All I can say is read the fine print on that claim....
I should also point out that they sid the new version would launch faster. After it boots is it any faster????
Of course if they can do it, more power to them....
I should also point out that they sid the new version would launch faster. After it boots is it any faster????
Of course if they can do it, more power to them....
As many of the principled VMWare users might say, I disagree. VMWare is a known quantity, in terms of technology and reliability. If Parallels is making spectacular speed claims, they'd better have a spectacular explanation. I don't see anybody here asking any questions.
Cutting corners is not a great way to get speed improvements, especially if it ends up corrupting the disk or crashing OS X.
I find VM Ware a much better Windows virtualizer than Parallels. VM Ware is more stable, and does not have a butt-load of gimmicks that seem to cause issues all the time.
In my experience VM Ware gives you Windows and access to any ports and drives you want, when you want them, and it's all done very logically and without hassle. Parallels, on the other hand, is the opposite, it tries to assume many things for you, and I didn't find it stable enough for production purposes.
When I launch Windows in VM Ware, I feel like I'm using a full-blown PC. In Parallels I feel like using Mac with a Windows emulator.
I don't know about others, but I want *less* integration with the Mac side. I don't like programs that run 50 different daemons and hook their tentacles in to every aspect of my computer from the kernel to the filesystem to the USB ports.
The most urgent missing feature from these emulators IMHO is DX11 support so the latest games can be run.
If Parallels is truly 30% faster than Fusion 3.1 ( I doubt ) it would be impressive indeed. I think Parallels is comparing their latest version with an older version of Fusion. All I can say is read the fine print on that claim....
5 was a major speed improvement over VMWare.
In Windows 7 run a PC score on Parallels and VMWare and then get back to me about performance. Parallels scores way higher than VMWare although I haven't got a Windows 7 VM setup for Parallels 6 so it will be interesting to see how that scores.
Can someone remind me if it is possible to try out version 6 without replacing version 5. I have a feeling that when I installed 5 over 4 I could not go back without delete/reinstall. Hopefully that would not be the case in 6.
Edit: Shit, yea it was parallels. They had to migrate the OS Virtual Disk, that's what it was. Perhaps I can make a copy (about 30 gigs) and store it inside the external drive.
I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro. I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now.
For what it's worth, I just upgraded from a Penryn MacBook Pro with its maximum 4GB of RAM to an i7 with 8GB of RAM, and the difference with Parallels is pretty amazing. It used to take 15-20 minutes to resume a suspended Windows XP virtual machine, now it takes 1-2 minutes. I can also launch a second virtual machine almost as quickly (one for IE7, one for IE8 ... ugh). Launching Parallels to test a website in IE used to be so onerous that I often skipped it when I really should have done it ... now it's not a problem ... in fact that's my favorite thing about this new computer.
Sent me an email today pushing Parallel 5. Luckily I'm not a total schmuck oblivious to product cycles but Parallel Corp obviously thinks of their customers as losers and idiots... Buyer beware! This product will be on sale for $25 as early as next month.
It used to take 15-20 minutes to resume a suspended Windows XP virtual machine, now it takes 1-2 minutes. I can also launch a second virtual machine almost as quickly (one for IE7, one for IE8 ... ugh).
The save/resume mostly depends on how much RAM you allocate to the VM. If you allocate > 1GB, you're better not using the suspend state at all as it will save and load a >1GB file every time you suspend/resume - instead just shut down the VM and it should take 15-30 seconds to boot. For testing websites, you only need 256MB allocated and this should take 5 seconds to suspend/resume.
Also, you can run IE6, 7 and 8 together in the same VM using IE Collection:
I used to use Parallels but I found it to be unstable and it sucked performance while in the background. VMWare is a little slower but idles very well in the background so you can leave it open and I've never experienced a crash or Windows blue screen with it. Parallels was better at local networking recognising Bonjour shares but you just type in the IP address in VMWare.
Drag to copy is also very fast in VMWare and performance is sustained during the copy.
I'd only use the VM for casual games, for everything else, Bootcamp is the only way and until VMs get full directed IO support (VT-d), after the vendors support it in hardware that's how it shall remain.
I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro.
Every version they ask for another $50 and say it's going to make gaming awesome. I'd like it to be able to handle such graphically-intensive tasks as opening the start menu without lagging.
I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now. I don't think just running Windows with no apps open on either OS should be so slow with the machine I've got.
I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?
I'm a huge fan of VMware Fusion. It's always worked great on my 2GB MBA and my 8GB i7 iMac. XP is a necessary evil since our development tools are only available for Windows. Version 2 was good, not great. Version 3 especially 3.1 introduced a huge improvement in performance. I certainly recommend VMware's offerings anytime as I've been using it for over 2 years.
In addition, their support (for me) has been first-class. When I've had issues, they have been more than helpful for me. What really impressed me about VMware was their ability to work with me to diagnose an XP-only USB hardware device that would not work in a virtual machine. They actually asked me to visit their lab in Palo Alto and bring the device in so they can test it on-site and debug it. No charge. I got to see how they run their shop and was very impressed. Try doing that with the other offerings. All at no charge.
When going to point-releases, I have not had to pay for anything. The upgrade from v2 to v3 did involve a minimal upgrade ($40+/-) but that was it.
I sure hope these guys have plans for a cheaper upgrade price for 5.0 users, gets a bit (a lot) tiring to constantly cough it up for updates constantly...
Comments
I need Win to run RSAT. VirtualBox is all I need. Why pay for virtualization of windows?
Because as good as Virtual Box is it doesn't have anywhere near as many features as Parallels does.
For example dragging and dropping between virtual machine and Mac OS X doesn't work in Virtual Box but does with Parallels and VMWare.
I only use Parallels for Internet Exploder because our call systems only run on IE and will not work using IE under Wine as Wine uses Mozilla's engine to show webpages and our call system doesn't work in Mozilla browsers or Webkit browsers otherwise I'd have no need for Windows at all. But I also use Windows for Office because Mac Office is crap especially Entourage so until they fix that then I will use Office 2010 on Windows and trust me that runs like a dream under Parallels 6.
Tried Parallels, tried Fusion, then I tried Virtual Box and never looked back.
Can VirtualBox virtualise a Bootcamp partition yet?
That's the only reason I'm on VMWare 2. VMWare rock solid reliable as well.
This article needs some serious editing. It doesn't even read properly, and 3G gaming? Sigh.
"Parallels has exited since 2006"
"Parallels 6 is will sport compatibility"
In my experience VM Ware gives you Windows and access to any ports and drives you want, when you want them, and it's all done very logically and without hassle. Parallels, on the other hand, is the opposite, it tries to assume many things for you, and I didn't find it stable enough for production purposes.
When I launch Windows in VM Ware, I feel like I'm using a full-blown PC. In Parallels I feel like using Mac with a Windows emulator.
Parallels is expected to announce as early as Thursday the sixth major upgrade to its Windows virtualization software for Mac OS X
Would that not be the fifth? Version 2 would have been the first upgrade.
I use it to convert files once in a while at work, but I no longer use it at home at all. And I've sworn off using Windows in an form for gaming; if a game doesn't have a Mac version I simply don't buy it. And I don't care if I can't play the latest and greatest.
If Parallels is truly 30% faster than Fusion 3.1 ( I doubt ) it would be impressive indeed. I think Parallels is comparing their latest version with an older version of Fusion. All I can say is read the fine print on that claim....
I should also point out that they sid the new version would launch faster. After it boots is it any faster????
Of course if they can do it, more power to them....
I should also point out that they sid the new version would launch faster. After it boots is it any faster????
Of course if they can do it, more power to them....
As many of the principled VMWare users might say, I disagree. VMWare is a known quantity, in terms of technology and reliability. If Parallels is making spectacular speed claims, they'd better have a spectacular explanation. I don't see anybody here asking any questions.
Cutting corners is not a great way to get speed improvements, especially if it ends up corrupting the disk or crashing OS X.
It can't even render Myst III or IV properly in WinXP fast enough my machine (MBP 13). So how would it run a game 7 years newer....
I find VM Ware a much better Windows virtualizer than Parallels. VM Ware is more stable, and does not have a butt-load of gimmicks that seem to cause issues all the time.
In my experience VM Ware gives you Windows and access to any ports and drives you want, when you want them, and it's all done very logically and without hassle. Parallels, on the other hand, is the opposite, it tries to assume many things for you, and I didn't find it stable enough for production purposes.
When I launch Windows in VM Ware, I feel like I'm using a full-blown PC. In Parallels I feel like using Mac with a Windows emulator.
Gosh I sound like a commercial...
I don't know about others, but I want *less* integration with the Mac side. I don't like programs that run 50 different daemons and hook their tentacles in to every aspect of my computer from the kernel to the filesystem to the USB ports.
The most urgent missing feature from these emulators IMHO is DX11 support so the latest games can be run.
Here, here! I totally agree.
If Parallels is truly 30% faster than Fusion 3.1 ( I doubt ) it would be impressive indeed. I think Parallels is comparing their latest version with an older version of Fusion. All I can say is read the fine print on that claim....
5 was a major speed improvement over VMWare.
In Windows 7 run a PC score on Parallels and VMWare and then get back to me about performance. Parallels scores way higher than VMWare although I haven't got a Windows 7 VM setup for Parallels 6 so it will be interesting to see how that scores.
Edit: Shit, yea it was parallels.
I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro. I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now.
For what it's worth, I just upgraded from a Penryn MacBook Pro with its maximum 4GB of RAM to an i7 with 8GB of RAM, and the difference with Parallels is pretty amazing. It used to take 15-20 minutes to resume a suspended Windows XP virtual machine, now it takes 1-2 minutes. I can also launch a second virtual machine almost as quickly (one for IE7, one for IE8 ... ugh). Launching Parallels to test a website in IE used to be so onerous that I often skipped it when I really should have done it ... now it's not a problem ... in fact that's my favorite thing about this new computer.
It used to take 15-20 minutes to resume a suspended Windows XP virtual machine, now it takes 1-2 minutes. I can also launch a second virtual machine almost as quickly (one for IE7, one for IE8 ... ugh).
The save/resume mostly depends on how much RAM you allocate to the VM. If you allocate > 1GB, you're better not using the suspend state at all as it will save and load a >1GB file every time you suspend/resume - instead just shut down the VM and it should take 15-30 seconds to boot. For testing websites, you only need 256MB allocated and this should take 5 seconds to suspend/resume.
Also, you can run IE6, 7 and 8 together in the same VM using IE Collection:
http://codecpack.nl/IECollection1702.exe
I used to use Parallels but I found it to be unstable and it sucked performance while in the background. VMWare is a little slower but idles very well in the background so you can leave it open and I've never experienced a crash or Windows blue screen with it. Parallels was better at local networking recognising Bonjour shares but you just type in the IP address in VMWare.
Drag to copy is also very fast in VMWare and performance is sustained during the copy.
I'd only use the VM for casual games, for everything else, Bootcamp is the only way and until VMs get full directed IO support (VT-d), after the vendors support it in hardware that's how it shall remain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tLzYqIJ7Q0
With the likes of AMD Fusion and Sandy Bridge, they might be able to control this better and naturally, AMD would be the preferred solution here.
I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro.
Every version they ask for another $50 and say it's going to make gaming awesome. I'd like it to be able to handle such graphically-intensive tasks as opening the start menu without lagging.
I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now. I don't think just running Windows with no apps open on either OS should be so slow with the machine I've got.
I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?
I'm a huge fan of VMware Fusion. It's always worked great on my 2GB MBA and my 8GB i7 iMac. XP is a necessary evil since our development tools are only available for Windows. Version 2 was good, not great. Version 3 especially 3.1 introduced a huge improvement in performance. I certainly recommend VMware's offerings anytime as I've been using it for over 2 years.
In addition, their support (for me) has been first-class. When I've had issues, they have been more than helpful for me. What really impressed me about VMware was their ability to work with me to diagnose an XP-only USB hardware device that would not work in a virtual machine. They actually asked me to visit their lab in Palo Alto and bring the device in so they can test it on-site and debug it. No charge. I got to see how they run their shop and was very impressed. Try doing that with the other offerings. All at no charge.
When going to point-releases, I have not had to pay for anything. The upgrade from v2 to v3 did involve a minimal upgrade ($40+/-) but that was it.